a29zuk
Member
Another one bites the dust.... Today Genesee County in Michigan has encrypted it Police Dispatch channels including Flint City Police.
Jim
Jim
The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
MarkPalmer
Member
I have never had any gripes with business or any other private band encryption. I have the gripe with police service encryption because my tax money pays for all state, county and local police and I like to hear how my money is being spent in this respect. Fair enough?
Like I said before all states need to have legislation drawn up like the congressman in Colorado outlawing encryption.
Encryption is another way for departments to do illegal stuff behind the tax payers back.
Not to mention they are taking away to rights to freedom of information.
David
Encryption is another way for departments to do illegal stuff behind the tax payers back.
Not to mention they are taking away to rights to freedom of information.
David
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Your tax money pays for court houses, but you just can't waltz in and rifle through the judge's papers on his desk. Tax money pays for public schools but you can't just walk freely through a public school without being escorted and approved to be on campus by administration. Tax money pays for the computers, cell phones, and networks utilized by government employees but nothing gives you the ability to monitor government communications in real time. You see how this doesn't pass the mustard test?
You are always free to FOIA any government communications you wish to ask for. Contrary to the popular belief, government employees do not sit around and spend their days trying to figure out how to make the small number of radio hobbyists miserable by using encryption. It's a natural progression of technology, and time marches on. When LTE/5G starts replacing legacy LMR than what?
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
No. That's not the way it works.
You can want that. You can ask for it, but it's unlikely you will get it. There are plenty of ways to see how your tax dollars are being spent. Having free access to any form of encrypted communications in real time isn't one of them.
Remember, Folks, this is a hobby. The fact that technology has kept most radio communications open and freely accessible for decades doesn't mean it has to stay that way. If we try to force a ban on encryption, agencies will just move farther into using existing LTE services for handling calls. In some agencies, all the good stuff is sent to the computer in the car, and you'll never hear it anyway.
Not quite how tax dollars work. Good try though
Best bet is to be active in voting for representatives who will listen, Colorado although currently unsuccessful has legislators who will listen, get Sheriffs and mayors/city council who are sympathetic, ones who will replace resistant comm managers, document incidents when possible, encourage the media to keep up, and wish the decision makers who weaponize encryption well in their future endeavors.
It’s hilarious how they come in and get all bent out of shape because someone will question them
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
It’s hilarious how they come in and get all bent out of shape because someone will question them
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Last edited:
paulears
Member
I sympathise, but the UK's enmergency services have been encrypted for a long time now, and the actual users - fire, police and ambulance in the main don't even notice their radios are encypted. All the doubletalk has gone and they can say what they like without fear of being overheard. The inter-service links work fine and other agencies can be brought onboard with spare equipment quite quickly when necessary. For them it works fine. For nosey people, it's an annoyance, but for the criminals it's stopping the3m knowing what's going on. Business by business is also encrypting now - many not even knowing they're more secure, they just bought new radios. Seems to work fine.
Incorrect. We DO have the ability to influence the use of encryption. I’ve found the easiest approach is to know ahead of time if encryption is being considered in bid proposals for new comms systems. This can be accomplished by simply asking the agency what their plans are going forward. Any proposal that has a large price tag goes before the voters as an included part of the total budget, or a bond issue. This tends to get the attention of other municipal departments, as a no vote for a comms system could mean the WHOLE budget gets voted down. So, it’s a case of educating everyone involved in municipal govt along WITH the voters.Why fight over something you have no control over?
We don’t need stats on IF encryption helps fight crime. It’s a given. The answer is yes. But police agencies have been protecting sensitive dispatches by using other protected forms of communicating such as MDT’s and cell phones. They a fully aware that transmissions in the clear can be monitored by both the law abiding citizenry and the crooks. A better stat would be a count on how many times the police have gotten critical input from the law abiding community that listens to police dispatched. (That is NOT to say if we hear the police dispatched for someone casing the neighborhood we should go outside and put ourselves in danger-I knowvof one instance where a resident did just that WITH his sidearm in hand and almost got shot by a cop! Dumb move for sure. The cop who almost shot the resident became a strong advocate for encryption from that point on... when before, he was agreeable to allowing these “routine dispatches” over an “unguarded” frequency! That resident didn’t do anything for those of us who advocate a “limited use of encryption”.)
paulears
Member
I don't want top promote the alternative viewpoint, but if you ask anyone who uses comms for business, and probably those who use it for telephoning, they are often surprised people can listen in. there is an assumption by the uninformed that phones are private. Business users like taxi firms actually when asked the question, ALWAYS opt for encryption. It seems the only people who do not want it, are not the actual users, but people who want (generally) insider information. I'd guess most are totally honest and genuine. So the question is why are the people a step away from the actual communicators making a case that encryption is bad? Who for?
If there was a vote on to enable encryption, or leave it open, then employees and employers will opt for encryption. It's simply a no brainer. In the UK, we have totally crazy data regulations now. People believe that taking someone's name and address to put on a church mailing list is a crime (it's not, of course) so the subject of privacy comes up all the time here.
Why would any business, with heavily protected corporate information pass any of it over an essentially public comms system?
If I have understood it correctly, in the US, the public have a right to know private information? sure - Police and Fire are funded by the people, but that surely doesn't give the people the right to listen to sensitive radio traffic? Watching TV from the US gives me the opposite viewpoint. It's the people trying to stop the Federal agencies finding out what they are doing, and in these sitcoms/entertainment, the crooks never listen in to the traffic, when it would be the obvious thing to do when you are robbing a bank/planning a drugs delivery/arranging a hit?
If there was a vote on to enable encryption, or leave it open, then employees and employers will opt for encryption. It's simply a no brainer. In the UK, we have totally crazy data regulations now. People believe that taking someone's name and address to put on a church mailing list is a crime (it's not, of course) so the subject of privacy comes up all the time here.
Why would any business, with heavily protected corporate information pass any of it over an essentially public comms system?
If I have understood it correctly, in the US, the public have a right to know private information? sure - Police and Fire are funded by the people, but that surely doesn't give the people the right to listen to sensitive radio traffic? Watching TV from the US gives me the opposite viewpoint. It's the people trying to stop the Federal agencies finding out what they are doing, and in these sitcoms/entertainment, the crooks never listen in to the traffic, when it would be the obvious thing to do when you are robbing a bank/planning a drugs delivery/arranging a hit?
Mostly because the political and social climate in the US is way different than the UK, always has been else we would still be under the crown
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Also public pressure has just been proven that it can in fact reverse a decision to encrypt, not everything but it is a start
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
On TV, the act of streaming police broadcasts for crime is not promoted, that idea is suppressed. In the USA, disclosing ANY communication is considered a crime. You can listen all you want, just don't tell your neighbor.
Broadcastify, in my opinion, skirts this law by wide area broadcasting, to anybody. This is the same as taking your scanner, hooking it to a PA system, and blasting the traffic out to your neighbors. The INTENT of the law, was to limit disclosures to a small audience, those who could recieve the signal with their own equipment. Wholesale broadcasting, AND ARCHIVING the traffic, weasels around the law in affect. ANY use of acquired radio (broadly-any over the air reception) traffic for committing a crime or making monetary gain, is prohibited.
Broadcastify, in my opinion, skirts this law by wide area broadcasting, to anybody. This is the same as taking your scanner, hooking it to a PA system, and blasting the traffic out to your neighbors. The INTENT of the law, was to limit disclosures to a small audience, those who could recieve the signal with their own equipment. Wholesale broadcasting, AND ARCHIVING the traffic, weasels around the law in affect. ANY use of acquired radio (broadly-any over the air reception) traffic for committing a crime or making monetary gain, is prohibited.
Then we have this
And They want us to trust law enforcement
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And They want us to trust law enforcement
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
That's bad cops. That doesn't mean law enforcement is inherently bad, and has nothing to do with encryption. The solution is you get rid of bad cops.
except now we seem to have an epidemic of this lately
2 new examples
the above is pretty disturbing that my life could be ruined at any moment by a rogue officer or officers
Dallas is particularly disturbing in the context of this discussion, DPD was refusing to release body cam footage in this case, the charges were dropped but a lawsuit is pending, this wasn't just 1 bad cop, this was several not properly doing their job, EMS not doing their job, then the department tried to hide it.
now I am not saying whole departments are corrupt, but it is public oversight that helps maintain the transparency of a department, if there is a rotten egg, they should know they are being watched.
2 new examples
'Something we're not proud of': Fired deputy Zach Wester arrested in drug planting probe
Former Jackson County Deputy Zach Wester was arrested on racketeering and numerous other charges for allegedly planting street drugs on unsuspecting motorists before hauling them off to jail.
www.tallahassee.com
the above is pretty disturbing that my life could be ruined at any moment by a rogue officer or officers
'You're gonna kill me!': Dallas police body cam footage reveals the final minutes of Tony Timpa's life
Tony Timpa wailed and pleaded for help more than 30 times as Dallas police officers pinned his shoulders, knees and neck to the ground. ...
www.dallasnews.com
Dallas is particularly disturbing in the context of this discussion, DPD was refusing to release body cam footage in this case, the charges were dropped but a lawsuit is pending, this wasn't just 1 bad cop, this was several not properly doing their job, EMS not doing their job, then the department tried to hide it.
now I am not saying whole departments are corrupt, but it is public oversight that helps maintain the transparency of a department, if there is a rotten egg, they should know they are being watched.
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
except now we seem to have an epidemic of this lately
2 new examples
'Something we're not proud of': Fired deputy Zach Wester arrested in drug planting probe
Former Jackson County Deputy Zach Wester was arrested on racketeering and numerous other charges for allegedly planting street drugs on unsuspecting motorists before hauling them off to jail.www.tallahassee.com
the above is pretty disturbing that my life could be ruined at any moment by a rogue officer or officers
'You're gonna kill me!': Dallas police body cam footage reveals the final minutes of Tony Timpa's life
Tony Timpa wailed and pleaded for help more than 30 times as Dallas police officers pinned his shoulders, knees and neck to the ground. ...www.dallasnews.com
Dallas is particularly disturbing in the context of this discussion, DPD was refusing to release body cam footage in this case, the charges were dropped but a lawsuit is pending, this wasn't just 1 bad cop, this was several not properly doing their job, EMS not doing their job, then the department tried to hide it.
now I am not saying whole departments are corrupt, but it is public oversight that helps maintain the transparency of a department, if there is a rotten egg, they should know they are being watched.
Being encrypted does not stop these kinds of things from happening. Being in the clear also does not stop these kinds of things.
scanthewaves
Member
Not to sound redundant but I have to put my 2 cents worth in, I do understand the need to keep the bad guy guessing when it comes to encryption and online rebroadcast but take for example a municipality like Eugene Oregon in Lane County which has pretty much gone completely encrypted, Eugene has had a history of government and Police abuse, they can say they are doing it to protect their officers but it's also a great way to no longer have transparency when it comes to abuses of power. I remember when I lived in Alachua FL, at that time the govt and Police were very corrupt, and you could hear them talking in the clear about some of the abuse they were involved with, they could have had encryption back than but they didn't seem to care who was listening to them, I'm not sure why they chose to transmit without encryption, perhaps it wasn't in their squandered budget, only that now if they have gone encrypted and still are corrupt there is no transparency and no accountability for their corruption. I will not set foot in Eugene for the fact that today more than ever the abuse of power has great potential since they encrypted, furthermore I blame the slick sales reps for the encryption radio sales, like Motorola convincing small departments like Eugene that they even need encryption. I remember when Eugene went encrypted, the Police Chief of neighboring Corvallis vowed they would never encrypt as to be held accountable and to maintain transparency to the best of my knowledge they remain on their VHF channels un encrypted to this date. Furthermore if enough departments buy into the encryption sell, they will eventually kill the hobby for all of us.
Encrtyption used to require special hardware be plugged into radios, some models you needed to buy the version that could accept the expensive encryption card. Now, it's just a matter of software, and if they wish to encode the stream of data with a key. This makes the cost only what Motorola or others decide to charge to "unlock" the feature.
Paul
Paul
Similar threads
